I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

https://www.ancap.com.au/understanding-safety-features

I’ve read this statistic quite a few times.

It seems fantastically low.

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities, I would think that the only kinds of vehicular collisions that do not “involve some form of human error” would be:

*those caused by an animal suddenly entering the roadway

*those caused by treefall (or at least a subset of those)

*genuinely unforeseeable causes such as meteor strikes

I’ll be damned if they add up to 10% of crashes.

Poor road design, that’s more human error.

Poor driverless car concept and design, that’s another shedload of human error for the future.

Probably get some pork chops for tea.

Having some kind of medical event while driving, is that human error?

furious said:

Having some kind of medical event while driving, is that human error?

Hmm.. in some cases.

The many cases of humans deliberately speeding or otherwise deliberately driving dangerously can’t really count as “error”.

Murrumbateman Rd has some sharp bends, which, in the bush is great for kangaroos to be on the road and remain unseeable until the last few seconds travelling within the speed zone of 100kmh.

they can appear to be still and on the side of the road, one jump is all it takes for them, to be in the middle of the lane

dv said:

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities,

I agree. I get pissed off when even the ABC news says “ The weather has caused many accidents” No it hasn’t, pricks who can’t drive in poor weather have caused them.

But back to your point, I imagine that they mean human error directly and immediately caused the accidents rather than including poor maintenance and falling asleep etc.

pommiejohn said:

dv said:

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities,

I agree. I get pissed off when even the ABC news says “ The weather has caused many accidents” No it hasn’t, pricks who can’t drive in poor weather have caused them.

But back to your point, I imagine that they mean human error directly and immediately caused the accidents rather than including poor maintenance and falling asleep etc.

that former ruler of Syria drove at high speed in Fog

and it killed him

not the fog, his speeding in Fog

I think it is stretching things to say that all mechanical failures are due to human error.

Also perhaps it means human error on the part of one or more drivers, in which case your category of animals in the path of the vehicle would include humans, which must account for a reasonable %.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it is stretching things to say that all mechanical failures are due to human error.

Also perhaps it means human error on the part of one or more drivers, in which case your category of animals in the path of the vehicle would include humans, which must account for a reasonable %.

Well it was humans who decided it was a good idea to drive around in vehicles that will inevitably be subject to some degree of unpredictable mechanical failure.

Bubblecar said:

The many cases of humans deliberately speeding or otherwise deliberately driving dangerously can’t really count as “error”.

I disagree on that one. All speed or other dangerous driving related accidents will have a specific cause or causes which can be attributed to some specific driver error or errors.

CrazyNeutrino said:

pommiejohn said:

dv said:

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities,

I agree. I get pissed off when even the ABC news says “ The weather has caused many accidents” No it hasn’t, pricks who can’t drive in poor weather have caused them.

But back to your point, I imagine that they mean human error directly and immediately caused the accidents rather than including poor maintenance and falling asleep etc.

that former ruler of Syria drove at high speed in Fog

and it killed him

not the fog, his speeding in Fog

well, technically it wasn’t speeding that killed him.

it was the rapid deceleration at the end

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it is stretching things to say that all mechanical failures are due to human error.

Also perhaps it means human error on the part of one or more drivers, in which case your category of animals in the path of the vehicle would include humans, which must account for a reasonable %.

Well it was humans who decided it was a good idea to drive around in vehicles that will inevitably be subject to some degree of unpredictable mechanical failure.

On that basis dv’s list of things that were not human error would also be human error.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The many cases of humans deliberately speeding or otherwise deliberately driving dangerously can’t really count as “error”.

I disagree on that one. All speed or other dangerous driving related accidents will have a specific cause or causes which can be attributed to some specific driver error or errors.

I suppose we’re including deliberate errors along with accidental errors.

The Rev Dodgson said:

On that basis dv’s list of things that were not human error would also be human error.

Makes sense. We’re really just talking about different categories of human errors, all the way.

We’re really just talking about different categories of human errors, all the way…

…back to probably the original sin.

…with the exception of meteor strikes and other calamities not actually relevant to whether you’re driving a motor vehicle or not.

ChrispenEvan said:

We’re really just talking about different categories of human errors, all the way…

…back to probably the original sin.

I don’t think that can be claimed as an ‘error’…

It was one of INXS’ more popular songs…

dv said:

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities, I would think that the only kinds of vehicular collisions that do not “involve some form of human error” would be:

How far do you go with that though?
For example, I was driving along in my old rally car many years ago on the inland highway a few k’s to the north of Coolangatta Airport. With no warning the car suddenly darted to the right and before I could stop it, it went halfway across into the oncoming lane. As I took the pressure off the steering wheel it started to do it again but I was able to stop it in time, then brake safely to a halt off the side of the road.
The problem was that the RH stub axle on the FR suspension had partly broken and caused that wheel to turn right a fair bit. The brake caliper stopped it from coming off completely fortunately. There was also no oncoming traffic at the time, or I would most likely have hit them near head-on.
That part of the suspension is hardly ever inspected as they virtually never ever give trouble. I bought the car 2nd-hand but felt no real need to pull the front suspension apart to check all those things. (The lock nut on the RH stub axle should have had a castellated locking washer, but it didn’t and so after a period of time the nut tightened up and the bearing chewed the end off the axle. This never ever normally happens.)

When I was driving the old Cortina I bought for dad back from near Melbourne to here, I got a full ~70 km into the trip before the RR wheel & axle decided it wanted to leave the axle housing and escape. Fortunately the wheel arch & brake caliper stopped it coming completely out. Turned out that two (or more) owners before had not installed the wheel bearing locking collar properly, and as I was driving it a short way into my ~1800 km trip, it decided that was a good time to leave.

I certainly agree that these are caused by human error, but just how far do you go with inspecting a car to make sure it’s mechanically safe? I’m quite capable of pulling a car right down to the last nut & bolt, but not many other people are. Is it their fault that something fails in the car that is supposed to be okay?

I guess you could say that human error occurs in 100% of accidents. Even when an animal runs out on the road.. who put the road there in the first place? humans, that’s who

when a tree falls down.. who put the road there (and possibly even the tree) in the first place? humans, that’s who

Arts said:

I guess you could say that human error occurs in 100% of accidents. Even when an animal runs out on the road.. who put the road there in the first place? humans, that’s who

when a tree falls down.. who put the road there (and possibly even the tree) in the first place? humans, that’s who

nah… it all falls under ‘act of god’…

stumpy_seahorse said:

Arts said:

I guess you could say that human error occurs in 100% of accidents. Even when an animal runs out on the road.. who put the road there in the first place? humans, that’s who

when a tree falls down.. who put the road there (and possibly even the tree) in the first place? humans, that’s who

nah… it all falls under ‘act of god’…

who invented God? humans, that’s who

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it is stretching things to say that all mechanical failures are due to human error.

Give a counterexample.

Also perhaps it means human error on the part of one or more drivers, in which case your category of animals in the path of the vehicle would include humans, which must account for a reasonable %.

Driver error does not mean human error.

If they said that 90% of vehicular collisions are due to driver error, it would be closer to the mark.

dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

https://www.ancap.com.au/understanding-safety-features

Ancap safety ratings are total bullshit anyway, so you wouldn’t expect them to get their statistics right.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

https://www.ancap.com.au/understanding-safety-features

Ancap safety ratings are total bullshit anyway, so you wouldn’t expect them to get their statistics right.

but.. it is Australasia’s leading independent vehicle safety advocate.

Given modern high speed transport, and the densities of traffic that pass as normal, there’d be a type of collision of which the fallback on attention failures – failure to keep an adequate lookout etc (rear enders and that sort of thing) wouldn’t be able to be established. This ‘d be the case in a substantial small amount of crashes.

That there wasn’t adequate time or whatever to avoid having a crash.

You don’t hear much about high density traffic and how speed limits upregulate speed tending convergence, and that related safe trailing distance breaches, too failure to establish safe trailing distances.

People often, for example, maintain their speed from (proximity with) the vehicles ahead (and behind).

>This ‘d be the case in a substantial small amount of crashes.

fucken worked out well, not

I had writ no small amount, then changed it in me head to substantial amount

whatever.

transition said:

Given modern high speed transport, and the densities of traffic that pass as normal, there’d be a type of collision of which the fallback on attention failures – failure to keep an adequate lookout etc (rear enders and that sort of thing) wouldn’t be able to be established. This ‘d be the case in a substantial small amount of crashes.

That there wasn’t adequate time or whatever to avoid having a crash.

You don’t hear much about high density traffic and how speed limits upregulate speed tending convergence, and that related safe trailing distance breaches, too failure to establish safe trailing distances.

People often, for example, maintain their speed from (proximity with) the vehicles ahead (and behind).

Yes … all of these things come under human error

>Yes … all of these things come under human error

well, maybe, some of it is that most people on the road are in a hurry.

culture puts a high value on hurrying, we generalize it efficiency.

transition said:

>Yes … all of these things come under human error

well, maybe, some of it is that most people on the road are in a hurry.

culture puts a high value on hurrying, we generalize it efficiency.

(shrugs) There’s no need for it. What are they going to do with the time saved? Play a few more rounds of Candy Crush?

>(shrugs) There’s no need for it. What are they going to do with the time saved? Play a few more rounds of Candy Crush?

ever done ~80km/h and had a semi sit on ya tail?

the feelings amplified with a truck, but same applies in more regular traffic.

transition said:

>(shrugs) There’s no need for it. What are they going to do with the time saved? Play a few more rounds of Candy Crush?

ever done ~80km/h and had a semi sit on ya tail?
.

Yes.

If a crash occurred in that case, it would definitely be down to human error (by the truckie)

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

dv said:

transition said:

>(shrugs) There’s no need for it. What are they going to do with the time saved? Play a few more rounds of Candy Crush?

ever done ~80km/h and had a semi sit on ya tail?
.

Yes.

If a crash occurred in that case, it would definitely be down to human error (by the truckie)

well, if it were established to have been caused (in some part) by the proximity of the truck

my point though was of how speed limits tend to upregulate and converge speeds and increase traffic densities.

without thinking about it (habit and notions) quite a few people believe speed limits are to do that above (up-regulate speed), and for many in which case it’s never been worded they act as if speed limits are meant for that. Obstructing someone that wants to pass has strong feelings. It’s almost a cultural driver, part of ideology.

Sometimes a crash might be suicide, either into a tree or other vehicle. If intentional then it is not error.

tauto said:

Sometimes a crash might be suicide, either into a tree or other vehicle. If intentional then it is not error.

We’ve decided that intentional dangerous driving counts as “deliberate error”.

dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

https://www.ancap.com.au/understanding-safety-features

I’ve read this statistic quite a few times.

It seems fantastically low.

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities, I would think that the only kinds of vehicular collisions that do not “involve some form of human error” would be:

*those caused by an animal suddenly entering the roadway

*those caused by treefall (or at least a subset of those)

*genuinely unforeseeable causes such as meteor strikes

I’ll be damned if they add up to 10% of crashes.

my dad was an engineer during the war but also part of all sorts of road trials well before that. He told me what effect alcohol had on driver reactions and many of such things long before I heard anyone else talking about it. His comment on human error in road issues was more like less than five percent could be attributed to other factors. I’ve had this information all my life. Yes, it is well below ten percent.

Bubblecar said:

The many cases of humans deliberately speeding or otherwise deliberately driving dangerously can’t really count as “error”.

The error comes about by not being actually able to drive that fast.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Murrumbateman Rd has some sharp bends, which, in the bush is great for kangaroos to be on the road and remain unseeable until the last few seconds travelling within the speed zone of 100kmh.

they can appear to be still and on the side of the road, one jump is all it takes for them, to be in the middle of the lane

That can happen on all Australian roads.

pommiejohn said:

dv said:

Bearing in mind that driving to the weather conditions and vehicular maintenance and design are human responsibilities,

I agree. I get pissed off when even the ABC news says “ The weather has caused many accidents” No it hasn’t, pricks who can’t drive in poor weather have caused them.

But back to your point, I imagine that they mean human error directly and immediately caused the accidents rather than including poor maintenance and falling asleep etc.

THe month of May is the worst becAuse suddenly there are more instances of the sun in eyes and roads that just had a sprinkle but hey, the best raod speed signs are the ones that say, There is no speed limit because you simply must “drive to the road conditions”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I think it is stretching things to say that all mechanical failures are due to human error.

Also perhaps it means human error on the part of one or more drivers, in which case your category of animals in the path of the vehicle would include humans, which must account for a reasonable %.

Mechanical failures are mostly indeed down to poor maintenance and cheap parts. That sort of stuff in general makes up more than one would imagine. However it isn’t always possible to make such claims in this day and age. Down to the fact that most parts are made by machines which require recalibrating far less often than humans. Such parts are also made to be self sealed and with a prescribed lifetime. They merely need to be replaced when that lifetime is coming to an end.

Therefore the human element is largely removed from the mechnaical failure side and mechanical failures are less likely than electronic mayhem.

Arts said:

I guess you could say that human error occurs in 100% of accidents. Even when an animal runs out on the road.. who put the road there in the first place? humans, that’s who

when a tree falls down.. who put the road there (and possibly even the tree) in the first place? humans, that’s who

you should have a read of Richard Braughtigan’s tale about the tree that zoomed itself bigger and smaller as humans approached and left the scene.

Drink driving would cause a lot of driving errors!

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Murrumbateman Rd has some sharp bends, which, in the bush is great for kangaroos to be on the road and remain unseeable until the last few seconds travelling within the speed zone of 100kmh.

they can appear to be still and on the side of the road, one jump is all it takes for them, to be in the middle of the lane

That can happen on all Australian roads.

yes

just happened a few weeks ago in Creswick, dead roo in the main street

CrazyNeutrino said:

Drink driving under the influence would cause a lot of driving errors!

*fixed

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Murrumbateman Rd has some sharp bends, which, in the bush is great for kangaroos to be on the road and remain unseeable until the last few seconds travelling within the speed zone of 100kmh.

they can appear to be still and on the side of the road, one jump is all it takes for them, to be in the middle of the lane

That can happen on all Australian roads.

yes

just happened a few weeks ago in Creswick, dead roo in the main street

Again though that the fact can happen means that the driver should be looking for it, even if it hasn’t happened in years. It could at any time while driving between dusk and dawn.

stumpy_seahorse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Drink driving under the influence would cause a lot of driving errors!

*fixed

So many drivers are influenced. It isn’t every driver who is influenced.

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

dv said:

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

My younger brother broke the speed limit by 10km and does not want to pay the fine/court costs

CrazyNeutrino said:

yes

just happened a few weeks ago in Creswick, dead roo in the main street

Just had a weekend in SE QLD and had a close call with a roo. It jumped out and was pulled under the wheels of a car coming towards us. Could have been dicey if they had swerved to try miss the roo.

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

My younger brother broke the speed limit by 10km and does not want to pay the fine/court costs

Does he have a strategy?

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Drink driving under the influence would cause a lot of driving errors!

*fixed

So many drivers are influenced. It isn’t every driver who is influenced.

Errors still come down to lack of concentration upon driving itself. No matter what the influence(to a degree). A friend of mine was teaching his new Australian wife how to drive and she wasn’t concentyrating on driving alone. So he said, take the keys out. She asked why. He replied that she is to concentrate only upon driving while behind the wheel. If something distracts you from that then you should stop the car and take the keys out.

Phil_C said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

yes

just happened a few weeks ago in Creswick, dead roo in the main street

Just had a weekend in SE QLD and had a close call with a roo. It jumped out and was pulled under the wheels of a car coming towards us. Could have been dicey if they had swerved to try miss the roo.

The general consensus of safe driving is to not swerve. Better still be aware that such situations can happen every time you aren’t looking for them.

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

So

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

My younger brother broke the speed limit by 10km and does not want to pay the fine/court costs

Does he have a strategy?

Um,

he seems to have a strategy of continuing to drive his unregistered car, with license suspended

his other strategy is that letters from the police or courts or the sheriff that are not signed mean nothing

and that all uppercase letters are not in English, therefore the persons name in uppercase addressed to my bother are unintelligible

so his overall strategy is to ignore and not pay

wonder what will happen in the end?

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

My younger brother broke the speed limit by 10km and does not want to pay the fine/court costs

Does he have a strategy?

Um,

he seems to have a strategy of continuing to drive his unregistered car, with license suspended

his other strategy is that letters from the police or courts or the sheriff that are not signed mean nothing

and that all uppercase letters are not in English, therefore the persons name in uppercase addressed to my bother are unintelligible

so his overall strategy is to ignore and not pay

wonder what will happen in the end?

You could be a big brother and like, give him the word. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

bother = brother

dv said:

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

Very high I suspect. But only by low amounts, say, 1 – 5 km/h or so. Technically illegal but not dangerous at all.

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

My younger brother broke the speed limit by 10km and does not want to pay the fine/court costs

Does he have a strategy?

Um,

he seems to have a strategy of continuing to drive his unregistered car, with license suspended

his other strategy is that letters from the police or courts or the sheriff that are not signed mean nothing

and that all uppercase letters are not in English, therefore the persons name in uppercase addressed to my bother are unintelligible

so his overall strategy is to ignore and not pay

wonder what will happen in the end?

I’m almost certain that it will end well.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

dv said:

Does he have a strategy?

Um,

he seems to have a strategy of continuing to drive his unregistered car, with license suspended

his other strategy is that letters from the police or courts or the sheriff that are not signed mean nothing

and that all uppercase letters are not in English, therefore the persons name in uppercase addressed to my bother are unintelligible

so his overall strategy is to ignore and not pay

wonder what will happen in the end?

You could be a big brother and like, give him the word. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

He feels he has done nothing wrong and it was the police who are at fault by breaking the peace

Spiny Norman said:

dv said:

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

Very high I suspect. But only by low amounts, say, 1 – 5 km/h or so. Technically illegal but not dangerous at all.

VFH. Particularly through roundabouts, stop lights, across railway lines. and etc.

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Um,

he seems to have a strategy of continuing to drive his unregistered car, with license suspended

his other strategy is that letters from the police or courts or the sheriff that are not signed mean nothing

and that all uppercase letters are not in English, therefore the persons name in uppercase addressed to my bother are unintelligible

so his overall strategy is to ignore and not pay

wonder what will happen in the end?

You could be a big brother and like, give him the word. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

He feels he has done nothing wrong and it was the police who are at fault by breaking the peace

All will be at peace when he has no drivers licence.

He has lot his license before for speeding

this is the second time

I’m almost certain that it will end well.

was that it? do we laugh now?

CrazyNeutrino said:

He has lot his license before for speeding

this is the second time

make him walk.

I see a lot of people talk on mobile phones while driving, some I have witnessed serving into the next lane while I was behind them.

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

He has lot his license before for speeding

this is the second time

make him walk.

lot = lost

He has seen mad max, I dont think walking will happen.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I see a lot of people talk on mobile phones while driving, some I have witnessed serving into the next lane while I was behind them.

Take an alternate route.

CrazyNeutrino said:

roughbarked said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

He has lot his license before for speeding

this is the second time

make him walk.

lot = lost

He has seen mad max, I dont think walking will happen.

Don’t give him a lift anywhere.

dv said:

SoArts said:

interestingly, we did a study on why so many people speed in today’s criminology tutorial.

speeding has such a low ratio of crime v punishment, that is becomes easy for populations to justify their speeding – this is operant conditioning.. behaviour is conditioned by consequences..

Also social learning theory which states that human behavior is learned vicariously through modelling. As was suggested, we model our driving on those around us driving.

So what percentage of drivers break the speed limit?

we didn’t have those stats, but he consensus was that it was high considering that ‘breaking the speed limit’ is defined as anything over the posted limit for that area (eg 1km)

here’s an example of what I was speaking of

http://www.portlincolntimes.com.au/story/2025330/slower-drivers-frustrate-on-our-local-main-roads/

I would estimate that between one third and one half of the single-vehicle crashes I have attended have not been the result of human error but human intention. I don’t know what influence that might have on the numbers in the OP, but if the supposition is that crashes are not intentional, the supposition is wrong.

Lots of people can drive with different emotions

people can drive and be suicidal at the same time

sheer anger maybe another driving emotion

runs away from the pun

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

https://www.ancap.com.au/understanding-safety-features

Ancap safety ratings are total bullshit anyway, so you wouldn’t expect them to get their statistics right.

but.. it is Australasia’s leading independent vehicle safety advocate.

Insurance companies all have a much better understanding. I had the chance to glance at the NRMA’s vehicle safety ratings back in the late 1980s, and they were much better.

To play devil’s advocate, I could calculate vehicle safety from field of view in steradians, reduced by 50% of the area not covered by wipers, from the cost to repair a 5 km/hr collision, and from the stopping distance, reduced by 50% of the stopping distance increase after brake pad replacement. If I did that, I’d get a much better measure of safety than the Ancap ratings, and it would be in just about the reverse order to the Ancap ratings!

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ancap safety ratings are total bullshit anyway, so you wouldn’t expect them to get their statistics right.

but.. it is Australasia’s leading independent vehicle safety advocate.

Insurance companies all have a much better understanding. I had the chance to glance at the NRMA’s vehicle safety ratings back in the late 1980s, and they were much better.

To play devil’s advocate, I could calculate vehicle safety from field of view in steradians, reduced by 50% of the area not covered by wipers, from the cost to repair a 5 km/hr collision, and from the stopping distance, increased by 50% of the stopping distance increase after brake pad replacement. If I did that, I’d get a much better measure of safety than the Ancap ratings, and it would be in just about the reverse order to the Ancap ratings!

mollwollfumble said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ancap safety ratings are total bullshit anyway, so you wouldn’t expect them to get their statistics right.

but.. it is Australasia’s leading independent vehicle safety advocate.

Insurance companies all have a much better understanding. I had the chance to glance at the NRMA’s vehicle safety ratings back in the late 1980s, and they were much better.

To play devil’s advocate, I could calculate vehicle safety from field of view in steradians, reduced by 50% of the area not covered by wipers, from the cost to repair a 5 km/hr collision, and from the stopping distance, increased by 50% of the stopping distance increase after brake pad replacement. If I did that, I’d get a much better measure of safety than the Ancap ratings, and it would be in just about the reverse order to the Ancap ratings!

If you have not actually done this calculation, how do you know?

There are more than 3000 deaths due to road accidents every day. Most of these would have been easily avoidable, and many of the victims would be totally blameless.

No-one says much about this, meanwhile if the number of sudden avoidable deaths goes up by 1% on 1 day, due to a terrorist bombing in a western city, we never hear the end of it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are more than 3000 deaths due to road accidents every day. Most of these would have been easily avoidable, and many of the victims would be totally blameless.

No-one says much about this, meanwhile if the number of sudden avoidable deaths goes up by 1% on 1 day, due to a terrorist bombing in a western city, we never hear the end of it.

This argument applies to a shed load of things.
Like councils cutting down all the old growth trees because someone might sue the council if one falls on them.

Error’s an interesting concept really, when ya think about it.

In everyday life there’re many things that are happy accidents(sorta).

Of driving there’re more near misses (and collisions actively avoided, included), than colllisions.

On the other hand, perhaps safety standards for new cars in Australia are so high that the Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat. And this could be exactly what the quote in the original post is trying to tell us. ie.
dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

Read this as “the effects of the make, model, age, tyre baldness, brake wear and poorness of maintenance has no influence on 90% of (fatal) crashes”. ie. “Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat”.

https://www.ancap.com.au/safety-ratings-explained

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are more than 3000 deaths due to road accidents every day. Most of these would have been easily avoidable, and many of the victims would be totally blameless.

No-one says much about this, meanwhile if the number of sudden avoidable deaths goes up by 1% on 1 day, due to a terrorist bombing in a western city, we never hear the end of it.

This argument applies to a shed load of things.
Like councils cutting down all the old growth trees because someone might sue the council if one falls on them.

Didn’t know you were a bloody greenie PWM.

mollwollfumble said:

On the other hand, perhaps safety standards for new cars in Australia are so high that the Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat. And this could be exactly what the quote in the original post is trying to tell us. ie.
dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

Read this as “the effects of the make, model, age, tyre baldness, brake wear and poorness of maintenance has no influence on 90% of (fatal) crashes”. ie. “Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat”.

No, I’m wrong there.

Didn’t know you were a bloody greenie PWM.

he’s changed, man.

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are more than 3000 deaths due to road accidents every day. Most of these would have been easily avoidable, and many of the victims would be totally blameless.

No-one says much about this, meanwhile if the number of sudden avoidable deaths goes up by 1% on 1 day, due to a terrorist bombing in a western city, we never hear the end of it.

On the other hand, if I do a search on “accidental deaths world” (without “”) the first page of links all relate solely to road accidents, without a mention of all the other varied types of accidental death.

So maybe we should put road deaths in the same basket as terrorist deaths as way over-hyped, and pay more attention to people being crushed by falling trees as a result of careless local councils.

Google tells me that the only thing causing accidental deaths other than road accidents is gun related deaths.

I had the impression that there were a few work related deaths around the world, but I suppose I must be wrong.

This is QI

What people die from

I think the numbers are for the UK.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Google tells me that the only thing causing accidental deaths other than road accidents is gun related deaths.

I had the impression that there were a few work related deaths around the world, but I suppose I must be wrong.

Maybe you’re just not very good at google

mollwollfumble said:

On the other hand, perhaps safety standards for new cars in Australia are so high that the Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat. And this could be exactly what the quote in the original post is trying to tell us. ie.
dv said:

I was reading this Ancap summary in which it is stated that “ Approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error.”

Read this as “the effects of the make, model, age, tyre baldness, brake wear and poorness of maintenance has no influence on 90% of (fatal) crashes”. ie. “Ancap ratings aren’t worth squat”.

Well let’s not focus on Ancap. The statistic that I have presented is repeated all over the internet.

http://www.alertdriving.com/home/fleet-alert-magazine/international/human-error-accounts-90-road-accidents
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/roadaccidents.html
http://www.cta.tech/i3/Features/2014/January-February/Driverless-Cars-on-the-Rise

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Google tells me that the only thing causing accidental deaths other than road accidents is gun related deaths.

I had the impression that there were a few work related deaths around the world, but I suppose I must be wrong.

Maybe you’re just not very good at google

Well if the purpose of the exercise was to find data on accidental deaths other than those related to roads and guns, then I agree, my searches were not very good.

On the other hand if the purpose was to see what Google comes up with when you enter a very general search term or two, I’d say they were pretty good.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Google tells me that the only thing causing accidental deaths other than road accidents is gun related deaths.

I had the impression that there were a few work related deaths around the world, but I suppose I must be wrong.

A lot of the work related deaths are road accidents going to and from work.

Some of those car deaths will be suicide

google scholar might help with your searches

in Feb I hit a roo that jumped in the middle of the lane from the side of the road

was driving my dads ford ghia, 2001 model, roo died instantly, near Gunadroo.

car still drivable, not happy about killing an animal, happens a lot

racv, nrma, racq, might have more detailed road stats

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some of those car deaths will be suicide

google scholar might help with your searches

in Feb I hit a roo that jumped in the middle of the lane from the side of the road

was driving my dads ford ghia, 2001 model, roo died instantly, near Gunadroo.

car still drivable, not happy about killing an animal, happens a lot

Did the air bags go off?

Peak Warming Man said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some of those car deaths will be suicide

google scholar might help with your searches

in Feb I hit a roo that jumped in the middle of the lane from the side of the road

was driving my dads ford ghia, 2001 model, roo died instantly, near Gunadroo.

car still drivable, not happy about killing an animal, happens a lot

Did the air bags go off?

nup, looking from the front the bump was in the right side bottom corner in front of the right tyre

but enough to cause over $1000 dollars damage

I had managed to slow down from 80 to around 40 when I hit it

CrazyNeutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Some of those car deaths will be suicide

google scholar might help with your searches

in Feb I hit a roo that jumped in the middle of the lane from the side of the road

was driving my dads ford ghia, 2001 model, roo died instantly, near Gunadroo.

car still drivable, not happy about killing an animal, happens a lot

Did the air bags go off?

nup, looking from the front the bump was in the right side bottom corner in front of the right tyre

but enough to cause over $1000 dollars damage

I had managed to slow down from 80 to around 40 when I hit it

best thiing that could happen to an AU…

ugly things they are

There are a lot of car accidents that happen around Murrumbateman!

someone should do a bit of investigating

Similar model to the one I was driving

kangaroos are pretty solid.. how on earth did you manage instant death of one at 40kms per hour?

Accidents usually occur because of a chain of events, not because of any one single error.

The 90% figure is not the result of analysis of the entire chain of events which lead to a crash, but rather of the final event in the chain.

The quote from ANCAP given in the OP is poorly worded to reflect this.

So for example, if I was to get in my car drunk, speed around poorly maintained roads on near bald tires in torrential rain, hit a puddle and skid off the road and crash, the final event in the causal chain for my accident would be the puddle of water which is an environmental factor, not a human error factor.

Arts said:

kangaroos are pretty solid.. how on earth did you manage instant death of one at 40kms per hour?

car hit it on the passenger side then its neck went under the wheel, poor thing

I went back, did a spiritual I’m sorry old fella.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Google tells me that the only thing causing accidental deaths other than road accidents is gun related deaths.

I had the impression that there were a few work related deaths around the world, but I suppose I must be wrong.

A lot of the work related deaths are road accidents going to and from work.

I wouldn’t count that as work related, and I doubt if the stats do.